Mr. Speaker, speculation about the budget certainly will not happen from this side of the House.

We continue to consult with Canadians. We hear from Canadians what is important to them. We will not speculate about specifics in the budget, but I can assure members that there will be plans in the budget to continue job growth and continue growing the economy, all the while making sure we continue on a low tax plan and getting back to balance.

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are not cutting the transfer, why will they not reassure Canadians that they still have access to the training programs they have paid for?

The government has put forward no justification for this latest move. These investments train tens of thousands of Canadians every year and help get unemployed Canadians back to work.

At a time when so many are still struggling to get back on their feet, the government is cutting the legs out from under their provincial partners. What is its justification for this outrageous money grab?

Mr. Speaker, there is outrageous speculation from that side of the House, but what we do know for a fact is that every time we put forward initiatives from this side of the House to help grow the economy, to help create jobs, the NDP has stood in the way and voted against it. Every time we have tried to help people get back to work and have tried to make sure that EI is there for them—they have paid into it, and it is important for it to be available to them when they lose their jobs—the NDP voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, just before the recession started in October of 2008, the unemployment rate was 6.1%. It is now 7%. The youth unemployment rate was 11.7%. It is now 13.5%. The number of discouraged and involuntarily unemployed workers has increased dramatically since the date that matters: October of 2008, the date on which the recession started. That is the date that matters. That is the comparison that matters.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this: can he give us his categorical assurance that his budget will in fact address this growing calamity for workers and the growing inequality that plagues the Canadian economy?

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed by the question from the Liberal Party. This is a party that has voted against the targeted initiative for older workers, voted against the Helmets to Hardhats initiative, voted against the long-tenured worker program, voted against the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship completion grant, the Canada student grants program and the youth employment strategy. Of course, I could go on and on.

We are creating jobs in the country. We clearly need to create more, and I hope the Liberal Party will be supportive of these kinds of job creation initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all just astounded to hear the Prime Minister say that the Liberal Party voted against the Conservative Party's budget. Really, though, how is that surprising?

What is surprising is that the government is changing who is responsible for training without talking to the provinces. It is not consulting Quebec or the other provinces, which are very involved in this area.

How can the Prime Minister justify his government's unilateral action on this?

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Gouzenko scandal at the end of the Second World War, the response by the Government of Canada to a serious leak of information was to hold an inquiry. We now have two things that have happened. Never before has a chairman of SIRC been questioned with respect to his or her integrity or his or her appropriateness for that office. Never before have we had a situation in which information has been leaked to a foreign power, described by the government itself as an attack on our relationships with our allies, with no such inquiry being held.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party cites examples that clearly go before my memory. In terms of the history, I will leave him to those things.

What I can say in terms of some of the specifics he raised regarding the former chairman of SIRC, as is well known, the particular allegations, that will be subject to a legal process, have nothing to do with his role as chairman of that federal entity.

Mr. Speaker, for months now, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance has been justifying her actions, saying that the reform will help create jobs. At the same time, the government is preparing to eliminate the provincial training program for the unemployed in order to do who knows what.

We could end up with workers who are not as well trained and who will have to accept lower-paying jobs.

Why do the Conservatives want to re-centralize EI training programs? What are they going to do with this $2 billion?

Mr. Speaker, that is more speculation, but what we will not speculate on is the fact that the NDP have probably already made plans in their last caucus meeting to vote against our budget anyway.

We will again be supporting those people who have lost their jobs. It is critically important for those who are looking for a job to be able to have assistance, and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has put in place a plan that will hep those people find a job in their region and in their own skill set. We will continue to support those who are looking for a job and we will make sure that EI is there when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance says, when she deigns to respond, that her reform will give the unemployed an opportunity to learn a new trade. As she said so well, “That is false; that is completely false.”

Her reform is an attack on the regions, on the productivity of our seasonal industries, on tourism, agriculture and the list goes on.

The Conservatives committed $2 billion to the provinces to train job seekers five years ago. Can they now guarantee the integrity of this fund?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly take exception to that sort of comment in this House of Commons. There is no such minister in this government. We do have a minister who is handling the EI file and making sure that the fund is there to help those people when they do lose their jobs. A little more respect is owed to that minister in this government, who is doing a wonderful job of making sure that people get the support they need.

Mr. Speaker, that minister will start getting some respect when the government starts showing respect to unemployed Canadians.

Conservative EI policies are pushing unemployed Canadians onto provincial social assistance rolls. Instead of providing measures that fight high unemployment through such things as skills training, the Conservatives are demonizing the seasonal industries and cutting regional development.

I want to ask the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs if he would give us some indication of the meetings and consultations he has had with the provincial governments that will be affected by these changes in skills training.

Diane FinleyConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is there to help those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs through no fault of their own and give them some financial support while they look for another job. That is what the program is designed to do, but we are also taking one step further in helping Canadians identify the jobs that are available within their area and their skill set. If those jobs do not exist, EI will continue to be there for those people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Minister of Finance referred to the C.D. Howe Institute report on financial accountability, it was obvious that he had not read the entire report. The institute says that improvements still need to be made in financial reporting.

The Conservatives may well have tabled the main estimates, but when will they release the plans and priorities and stop hiding the truth about Canada's finances?

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, the C.D. Howe Institute recognized that the Conservative government of today is actually the most transparent government in Canada, and we support that.

It is our government that has put in place the Federal Accountability Act, and we continue to make sure that estimates are tabled in this House. They are exactly what the word refers to: “estimates”. We will continue consulting with Canadians and finding out what is important to them.

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. If the Conservatives had actually read the C.D. Howe Institute's report, they would find that it calls for better financial reporting from the government.

This undermining of oversight just gets worse. Conservatives are now asking MPs to review spending estimates, but the government has not released its departmental plans and priorities. In Conservative Ottawa, MPs are supposed to review spending before they even get to see the plan. No wonder the Conservatives are trying to get rid of the PBO.

The question is simple: when will the Conservatives abandon these underhanded attacks on financial oversight?

Tony ClementConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it all wrong, of course. We have standing orders that this government is obligated to perform against, and we do so. We make sure that we table the estimates when they are required to be tabled. We make sure that the reports on plans and priorities are tabled in due course when we are obligated to do so, and we do that because it is important for accountability. It is important to make sure that there is transparency for not only members of the House but the people of Canada.

We will continue to report to the people of Canada because that is what we do.

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Porter's rise to the top in the reviewing of Canada's spy services mirrors a series of donations that he made to the Conservative Party. These donations were in clear contravention of SIRC guidelines, yet the Conservatives cashed them anyway. As he was being promoted by the Prime Minister, he was apparently receiving millions in kickbacks, which is why he is now on the run for fraud.

Is Mr. Porter still a member of the Privy Council? Will the government finally come clean with Canadians about its relationship to Mr. Arthur Porter?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Porter resigned from his position long ago. These allegations have nothing to do with his time in service to the Government of Canada.

I would encourage the hon. member to use the occasion when he rises again to answer a few questions of his own. It was he, after all, who was singled out by the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission for having attempted to gerrymander the process that was supposed to be independent and separate from his inappropriate influence. Could he take the occasion now to do the right thing and apologize for his inappropriate conduct?

Mr. Speaker, those members get very uncomfortable about being schooled in accountability.

The fact is that in 2008 Senator Angus stated that Arthur Porter was “a man who could recognize power and knew how to get close to it”, and the Conservatives got him as close to the Prime Minister as one can get. This is another example of the dodgy ethical standards of the Senate, which is tarnishing Canadians' trust in public accountability.

Why will the government not do the right thing and end that patronage trough down the hall? Why will it not abolish the Senate?